You continue to ignore those citation, and continue to refuse to provide evidence your claims are correct.
You call it sophistry but it's all directly related to the one problem I want to solve, which is also what you're circling but never confronting.
LOL, if you look back at your last 4 posts, the list of "one problems" you have changes every time. Heck, in your last post you asked me to defend 3 or 4 claims I never made.
And, looking at your "question" below, I see things have haven't changed...
"How does the presence of a foreign company cause a person to quit his other occupation and go to work for them?"
Once again, I never made this claim, so why would I explain/defend it?
The reality is what I have been saying all along - the presence of LMCs in unindustrialized/newly industrializing countries harms the development of a local economy and reduces the over all quality of life.
Part of the problem is that LMC's undermine the ability of local industries to survive, thus damaging the local economy and leaving few employment options outside of the LMC's themselves.
Globalization makes this possible - the absence of trade barriers, absence of punitive tariffs, etc, creates the environment in which LMC's can act in this manner without consequence in their home countries, and in which local governments are unable to prevent it because they are bound by freetrade agreements, etc.
Once again, all covered in those papers you ignored.
I suspected it was because it provided a better life or future than his other occupation would have, even in the absence of that company.
What you (or I) suspect is meaningless, what can be proven is all that matters.
Those papers you insist on ignoring go into these kinds of issues in great depth - I'd recommend you read them. It is, after all, why I provided them.
You seem to be saying it's because that factory also sells goods to the local market, which drives him out of business, and/or the other locals he depends on for business.
That is one mechanism. Cheap foreign imports have a simular impact (undercutting of local producers), as does trade agreements that prevent the governments from imposing laws that protect domestic producers, etc.
That doesn't make sense to me at this stage. I'm not interested in any evidence until I can actually understand the mechanism by which it might work.
How can you understand mechanism without facts? That is ass backwards from the way science, and reason in general, function:
Step 1: observe reality,
Step 2: generate a hypothesis to explain reality,
Step 3: test hypothesis,
Step 4: modify hypothesis to fit new observations, then go backto step 1 and repeat...
You want to jump to step 2, whilst completely ignoring the very thing you need to even consider a mechanism - data.
That last sentence might sound strange. I don't want any evidence! Imagine you were wondering why the sky was blue. You have plenty of evidence by looking upwards. But that's not interesting, you'd rather understand reasons why it might be blue. Later you can check those reasons with more evidence.
And here is a prefect example of why your reasoning is faulty. There is no reason to determine the mechanism by which there is a blue sky until you've established the sky is, in fact, blue.
Otherwise you're just wasting time - if you found a mechanism to explain a blue sky, only to later observe it is green, you'd have wasted a lot of time chasing a false assumption.
I.E. one of my favorite sayings - start with a false assumption, come to a false conclusion.
Don't correct spelling errors. You know very well that serves no purpose except to irritate people.
My bad - I mixed you up with another posted. Sarcasm only works when the other person knows what you are talking about...
Bryan
